Support NeoGAF

[33-Hit-Combo]

Why would it be any of those things? I didn't claim any specifics here.

I'd argue that cars were safe enough back before we had 35 airbags in them, anyway. And yeah, I wouldn't mind that as my dd. Boring cars are for carrying dead people.

Good god man. Makes the car better in what sense? Do you not think that weight is attributed to performance, NVH, quality, features, safety etc.? You're stating something that everybody knows, nobody is disagreeing that the vehicle would lap a circuit faster with less weight.

Safe enough in the sense that you might come out with a few more broken limbs? What happens when you have an acccident and it wasn't your fault? You'd still be dead for driving an exciting car, but it's cool, because you drove an exciting car.

 

[reilo]

I would like to say, whatever Alpha told you about how amazing the F-Type V8S sounds, was a total lie.

...


...


... It sounds so much better than a post could ever describe it.

Time to make some money!

 

[TylerD]

Hey guys. Understeer is a bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkasHdSb1nQ&feature=youtu.be


I have to agree that the F-Type V8S sounds spectacular. SaabKyle05 recently uploaded is overview of a gorgeous example.

Snap, crackle, and pop.

 

[reilo]

Hey guys. Understeer is a bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkasHdSb1nQ&feature=youtu.be

I'd argue that cars were safe enough back before we had 35 airbags in them, anyway.

.

 

[TransTrender]

Hey guys. Understeer is a bitch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkasHdSb1nQ&feature=youtu.be

[/URL]

How do you get that much understeer in that car?
Was all the 'E-Assist' turned on?

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Man, fuck that guy. Driving in unfamiliar roads at high speeds like that is just reckless and an invite for something real bad to happen. You are not Sebastian Leob and even if you had the same skill-set, to do so on public roads and without race-spec harnesses and cages is nuts.

Well, to make N-Bomb point, there are other ways to reduce weight that doesn't compromise safety. It's not cheap, though.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

How do you get that much understeer in that car?
Was all the 'E-Assist' turned on?

You go way too fast for a corner and you'll understeer right through it. The electronic assists were probably the only things keeping him on the road before that point.

 

[GungHo]

Isn't that a bit too shiny for street legal?

Is that even street legal?

If it is, does it matter? It's not like you can see that shit if you're driving around in it.

 

[N-Bomb]

Cars were NOT safe "enough".

There's no such thing as safe enough, dude. Come on. That's like saying bullet proof armor is safe enough.

Good god man. Makes the car better in what sense? Do you not think that weight is attributed to performance, NVH, quality, features, safety etc.? You're stating something that everybody knows, nobody is disagreeing that the vehicle would lap a circuit faster with less weight.

Safe enough in the sense that you might come out with a few more broken limbs? What happens when you have an acccident and it wasn't your fault? You'd still be dead for driving an exciting car, but it's cool, because you drove an exciting car.

Look at NHTSA stats on auto deaths from 1949 on. If you look at all of the big dips, they have to do generally with seatbelt legislation in the US, from the first federal seat belt law in the late 60s to the introduction of front airbags (although those are of only little benefit) in the late 80s/early 90s and side impact protection. The trend downward has more to do with actual seatbelt use, which has gone from near 15% in 1984 to almost 85% now.

I will go out on a limb by saying that most of the safety tech introduced since the late 90s/early 2000s has had only a small impact on occupant safety, and the slow drop in fatalities during this time bares that out. The big dip lately is probably more attributable to Americans staying off the road to an extent since the crash in 07/08.

Without something revolutionary, it's all diminishing returns at this point. But people are so risk-averse and just want any sliver of extra protection they can get, regardless.

Myself, I pay enough for insurance already. I don't need a second layer I'm always. carrying. around with me. A second layer that just costs me more in gas, fun, and repairs. I'm happy with just seat belts and crumple zones.

Well, to make N-Bomb point, there are other ways to reduce weight that doesn't compromise safety. It's not cheap, though.

Yes, there are many ways!

 

[reilo]

Vehicle deaths have dropped from 46.8 per 1000 in 1990 to 35.9 per 1000 in 2009.

That's 10,000 lives saved a year and that is NOT insignificant.

You are factually wrong: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

 

[AlphaSnake]

I have to agree that the F-Type V8S sounds spectacular. SaabKyle05 recently uploaded is overview of a gorgeous example.

Snap, crackle, and pop.

It's impossible to capture how loud this car is when being revved. It's definitely an exhaust that will legitimately scare people walking behind it.

 

[RukusProvider]

2002 C5Z vs 2011 C6Z with ZR1 performance package comparison.

Background: I'm comparing the C5Z from back when it was at it's optimal, blistering around the track and back roads. I've pretty much driven my C5Z all it's life without ABS/TC/Active Handling due to the ABS/TC module going bad and never fixing it. It taught me a lot about car control and it's simply more fun.

The C6Z I only picked up recently and put on a few hundred miles but something's are immediately noticeable.

1. Engine. There is no doubt the C6Z is more powerful. Not only does it have more outright HP and TQ, it's the delivery that is amazing. Just silky smooth and keeps on pulling to redline. I've never experienced power delivery this smooth and I've driven a lot of high HP cars. The engine is a thing of beauty. The C5Z is more than a generation behind in this department. WINNER: C6Z

2. Transmission. The C5Z has two big issues when pushed hard. Sticky clutch pedal and grinding to 3rd. The C6Z has neither. The clutch on the C6Z is much lighter and the throws are shorter. WINNER: C6Z

3. Steering. The C5Z has a very nicely weighted steering with good feel that gives you confidence. I find the steering on the C6Z to be lighter than I'd like and it doesn't have the feedback of the C5Z. This could be due to the larger front tires also. WINNER: C5Z

4. Handling. The C5Z is one of the best balanced cars ever produced. It's a freakin track star and with a few mods, you can easily hand anyone their ass. However, the MSRC shocks "Magnetic Selective Ride Control" of the C6Z are wonderful and really keep the car together. I'll be curious to see how they hold upto track duty. TIE.

5. Comfort. The C5Z is raw, loud and "active." The C6Z is basically mild as they come until you get past 3,500 rpm, the baffles open up, and shit hits the fan. However, unlike the C5Z, you can drive the C6Z all around and not feel beaten up. WINNER: C6Z

6. Brakes. The C5Z's brakes are good BUT the Carbon Cermamic brakes on the C6Z are bigger than most people's rims and hold record after record. There's no competition here. WINNER: C6Z

7. Feedback. Due to the steering issue and the "raw" factor of the car, the C5Z is always communicating. For some, it can be an overwhelming amount of data thus you have to filter out what's critical and pay attention. However, I'd comfortably say that the feedback in the C5Z is better. WINNER: C5Z

8. Fun to drive. If you want a dominating track car, do this; Pick up a low mileage 2002-2004 C5Z. Then put some good brakes on it and get the pdadft stage 1 suspension (or T1 if track only). Now go out there and OWN track after track. However, don't get into a C6Z and feel that power...it'll ruin you. TIE

The C6Z by all accounts is an amazing car and with the Z07 package, you can wipe the floor with just about anything. Best part, you can do this over and over and over without the car ever complaining.

However, the thing I really appreciate now is what an amazing car the C5Z was in 2002. Chevrolet took a shot at the sports car world and frankly, kicked the shit out of it. A stock C5Z will still handle it's own but with just a few mods, you're looking a 10 year old world beater that you can put together for maybe 25k-30k. You won't find that anywhere else.

Now I'm going to touch up and sell off the C5Z but I'll always remember it as the best price to performance value ever produced. I hope whoever gets it next makes good use of it and learns how to drive it well.

For me, it's time to learn the limits of the C6Z....

 

[killertofu]

I love driving my sister's RSX around and makes me hate having an SUV.

What's the closest thing to an RSX avaliable today?

 

[YuriLowell]

2002 C5Z vs 2011 C6Z with ZR1 performance package comparison.

Background: I'm comparing the C5Z from back when it was at it's optimal, blistering around the track and back roads. I've pretty much driven my C5Z all it's life without ABS/TC/Active Handling due to the ABS/TC module going bad and never fixing it. It taught me a lot about car control and it's simply more fun.

The C6Z I only picked up recently and put on a few hundred miles but something's are immediately noticeable.

1. Engine. There is no doubt the C6Z is more powerful. Not only does it have more outright HP and TQ, it's the delivery that is amazing. Just silky smooth and keeps on pulling to redline. I've never experienced power delivery this smooth and I've driven a lot of high HP cars. The engine is a thing of beauty. The C5Z is more than a generation behind in this department. WINNER: C6Z

2. Transmission. The C5Z has two big issues when pushed hard. Sticky clutch pedal and grinding to 3rd. The C6Z has neither. The clutch on the C6Z is much lighter and the throws are shorter. WINNER: C6Z

3. Steering. The C5Z has a very nicely weighted steering with good feel that gives you confidence. I find the steering on the C6Z to be lighter than I'd like and it doesn't have the feedback of the C5Z. This could be due to the larger front tires also. WINNER: C5Z

4. Handling. The C5Z is one of the best balanced cars ever produced. It's a freakin track star and with a few mods, you can easily hand anyone their ass. However, the MSRC shocks "Magnetic Selective Ride Control" of the C6Z are wonderful and really keep the car together. I'll be curious to see how they hold upto track duty. TIE.

5. Comfort. The C5Z is raw, loud and "active." The C6Z is basically mild as they come until you get past 3,500 rpm, the baffles open up, and shit hits the fan. However, unlike the C5Z, you can drive the C6Z all around and not feel beaten up. WINNER: C6Z

6. Brakes. The C5Z's brakes are good BUT the Carbon Cermamic brakes on the C6Z are bigger than most people's rims and hold record after record. There's no competition here. WINNER: C6Z

7. Feedback. Due to the steering issue and the "raw" factor of the car, the C5Z is always communicating. For some, it can be an overwhelming amount of data thus you have to filter out what's critical and pay attention. However, I'd comfortably say that the feedback in the C5Z is better. WINNER: C5Z

8. Fun to drive. If you want a dominating track car, do this; Pick up a low mileage 2002-2004 C5Z. Then put some good brakes on it and get the pdadft stage 1 suspension (or T1 if track only). Now go out there and OWN track after track. However, don't get into a C6Z and feel that power...it'll ruin you. TIE

The C6Z by all accounts is an amazing car and with the Z07 package, you can wipe the floor with just about anything. Best part, you can do this over and over and over without the car ever complaining.

However, the thing I really appreciate now is what an amazing car the C5Z was in 2002. Chevrolet took a shot at the sports car world and frankly, kicked the shit out of it. A stock C5Z will still handle it's own but with just a few mods, you're looking a 10 year old world beater that you can put together for maybe 25k-30k. You won't find that anywhere else.

Now I'm going to touch up and sell off the C5Z but I'll always remember it as the best price to performance value ever produced. I hope whoever gets it next makes good use of it and learns how to drive it well.

For me, it's time to learn the limits of the C6Z....

C6Z sounds awesome. I will own one in the next couple of years.

 

[N-Bomb]

Vehicle deaths have dropped from 46.8 per 1000 in 1990 to 35.9 per 1000 in 2009.

That's 10,000 lives saved a year and that is NOT insignificant.

You are factually wrong: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

I counter your stats with my own:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Safety has largely NOT made us safer past 1990s levels. It HAS wasted our money and resources, however.

 

[ruxtpin]

It's impossible to capture how loud this car is when being revved. It's definitely an exhaust that will legitimately scare people walking behind it.

Had some on display at this month's Caffeine & Octane in Alpharetta. My lady said she'd be alright if I traded in the 370Z for one of the F-Types. Maybe next year!

Edit: Either that, or the new Vette. I want to give the Vette and Jaguar a year, as I don't like the idea of buying a new model in it's first year. Give it a year or two to see if they make any minor adjustment, address complaints, etc.

 

[coldfoot]

I counter your stats with my own:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Safety has largely NOT made us safer past 1990s levels. It HAS wasted our money and resources, however.

This is from your linked PDF:

The gold/green line in both cases is trending downward. That's the injury/fatality rate per distance travelled.
The black bars are total deaths/injuries. Of course they are going to increase as population increases, and even they decreased.

Therefore you are objectively wrong. We are definitely much safer than the 1990s.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

I counter your stats with my own:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Safety has largely NOT made us safer past 1990s levels. It HAS wasted our money and resources, however.

Who are you to say that the diminishing returns is not worth the effort?

Government safety regulations get stricter by the year, manufacturers have to improve to keep up.

 

[RukusProvider]

Had some on display at this month's Caffeine & Octane in Alpharetta. My lady said she'd be alright if I traded in the 370Z for one of the F-Types. Maybe next year!

Edit: Either that, or the new Vette. I want to give the Vette and Jaguar a year, as I don't like the idea of buying a new model in it's first year. Give it a year or two to see if they make any minor adjustment, address complaints, etc.

From a performance standpoint, the Vette will easily walk through the Jag.

You have a valid point about 1 year cars. That's partially why I cancelled my C7 order and picked up the C6Z.

If you really want a good deal on a C7, wait for the C7Z. The C7 owners will dump the standard model and upgrade to the C7Z and then you can picked a low mileage C7 for a great price.

 

[Liquidus]

The transmission in my 04 Civic (auto, I know) is starting to slip. 97,000km. Epic reliability.

 

[TylerD]

Went to go wash my car at lunch and it took 3 dollars and 3 tries to find a working bay. Guys come to mow the lawn 1 hr after.

 

[Ace Harding]

Did the all the negotiating over the phone for a 2013 Honda CR-V EX-L. Got my nearest dealer down to $26,900 before T/T (no additional fees other than tax and tags). Hyped. I think that's a great deal. Picking it up on Friday.

Any other dealer tricks I should watch out for? I'm getting the financing through them (through Honda Finance), approved for 0.9% APR for 60 months. So should be good there. I don't want any kind of extended warranty or anything right?

On the phone they basically said I'm all set, I can come in and pick the color, give it a drive, fill out the paperwork, get my insurance info faxed over (I'm currently uninsured but have a good quote) and drive it off the lot. I'm just worried about some last minute BS or haggling I need to do, or some additional expense I didn't anticipate.

 

[reilo]

This is from your linked PDF:

The gold/green line in both cases is trending downward. That's the injury/fatality rate per distance travelled.
The black bars are total deaths/injuries. Of course they are going to increase as population increases, and even they decreased.

Therefore you are objectively wrong. We are definitely much safer than the 1990s.

lmao

Thanks for saving me the time and effort.

Also, let's remember that the latest safety standards still aren't in the majority of vehicles driven today. There's a ton of old vehicles on the road that were built with old safety standards in mind, so all of these statistics are a lagging indicator. I expect that trend to keep going further and by 2015 we should see another precipitous drop.

 

[RukusProvider]

Did the all the negotiating over the phone for a 2013 Honda CR-V EX-L. Got my nearest dealer down to $26,900 before T/T (no additional fees other than tax and tags). Hyped. I think that's a great deal. Picking it up on Friday.

Any other dealer tricks I should watch out for? I'm getting the financing through them (through Honda Finance), approved for 0.9% APR for 60 months. So should be good there. I don't want any kind of extended warranty or anything right?

On the phone they basically said I'm all set, I can come in and pick the color, give it a drive, fill out the paperwork, get my insurance info faxed over (I'm currently uninsured but have a good quote) and drive it off the lot. I'm just worried about some last minute BS or haggling I need to do, or some additional expense I didn't anticipate.

Makes sure they don't try to sell you on paint protection and other crap.

Financing is where they often make a decent amount of money as the buyer has already let their guard down and went through the "sales" person. However, the financing team is trying to sell you services just as hard as the sales person was.

Just no, no no to everything should do.

 

[N-Bomb]

This is from your linked PDF:

The gold/green line in both cases is trending downward. That's the injury/fatality rate per distance travelled.
The black bars are total deaths/injuries. Of course they are going to increase as population increases, and even they decreased.

Therefore you are objectively wrong. We are definitely much safer than the 1990s.

I didn't say we weren't safer. But MUCH safer? It's not even cut in half since the 90s (13+ years?!), more like down 20-30% maybe. Yet, cars in general have gotten much less fun. Performance is riding on a crutch of horsepower and computer trickery.

Who are you to say that the diminishing returns is not worth the effort?

Government safety regulations get stricter by the year, manufacturers have to improve to keep up.

Who are you to say they ARE worth the effort? 1ish fatality per 100 million miles travelled? Do you understand how infinitesimally small that is? These 'safety' improvements at this point are just something that sells to overfearful moms. Injuries are actually UP in 2010!

I expect that trend to keep going further and by 2015 we should see another precipitous drop.

Good luck. Put some airbags in the footwells and in the trunk while you're at it.

Excessive safety has made cars worse from a lifestyle perspective.

 

[Liquidus]

Preach ma nikka.

Seriously though you're right N-Bomb.

 

[coldfoot]

I didn't say we weren't safer. But MUCH safer? It's not even cut in half since the 90s (13+ years?!), more like down 20-30% maybe.

20-30% means tens of thousands of people not dying and hundreds of thousands of people not getting injured. Nice to see that you don't think their lives matter too much.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I didn't say we weren't safer. But MUCH safer? It's not even cut in half since the 90s (13+ years?!), more like down 20-30% maybe. Yet, cars in general have gotten much less fun. Performance is riding on a crutch of horsepower and computer trickery.

For 95% of the population, safety outweighs "fun" by a huge margin (fun being completely subjective anyway). Besides, nobody is stopping you from buying a dangerous old car or some manic kit car.

Who are you to say they ARE worth the effort? 1ish fatality per 100 million miles travelled? Do you understand how infinitesimally small that is? These 'safety' improvements at this point are just something that sells to overfearful moms. Injuries are actually UP in 2010!

1 fatality per 100 million miles over 3 trillion miles driven is a difference of 30,000 fatalities. Did you even read the information you posted?

Good luck. Put some airbags in the footwells and in the trunk while you're at it.

Excessive safety has made cars worse from a lifestyle perspective.

A lifestyle perspective? Whose? Yours? Mine? Your average family with 2.1 children? This is an utter nonsense argument and you know it.

 

[robox]

I love driving my sister's RSX around and makes me hate having an SUV.

What's the closest thing to an RSX avaliable today?

for new cars?

scion fr-s/subaru brz
golf gti
mazda 3/mazdaspeed 3
focus st
hyundai genesis

lots of choices in the sporty compacts segment

 

[Bob Ross]

I love driving my sister's RSX around and makes me hate having an SUV.

What's the closest thing to an RSX avaliable today?

I was gonna say maybe a civic si or a Mazda 3

 

[twinturbo2]

for new cars?

scion fr-s/subaru brz
golf gti
mazda 3/mazdaspeed 3
focus st
hyundai genesis

lots of choices in the sporty compacts segment

There's a new GTI coming out next year, so keep that in mind.

 

[reilo]

What's even more hilarious about N-Bomb's asinine argument is that cars have been losing weight over the last 5 or so years, but to him it will never be good enough.

2600lb curbweight or bust! Who needs four doors and rear seats? Better served to have a rollcage!

 

[Seanbob11]

I just bought this Alpine CDE-178BT to replace the stereo in my 2005 Mini. I can't find anywhere to tell me what cables or adapters I will need to install. Any help would be a great help, thanks.

 

[Enron]

2600lb curbweight or bust! Who needs four doors and rear seats? Better served to have a rollcage!

MAXIMUM LIFESTYLE ENJOYMENT.

 

[N-Bomb]

20-30% means tens of thousands of people not dying and hundreds of thousands of people not getting injured. Nice to see that you don't think their lives matter too much.

And you do? I would bet that you don't care about most of idiots on the road that you don't know. They probably even anger you sometimes. I'm sorry if I sound callous, but it's the truth. If someone you know is in an accident, I'm sure you might wish things were safer, but for these thousands of faceless people? Let's not put on altruism theatre here. Shit happens.

For 95% of the population, safety outweighs "fun" by a huge margin (fun being completely subjective anyway). Besides, nobody is stopping you from buying a dangerous old car or some manic kit car.

1 fatality per 100 million miles over 3 trillion miles driven is a difference of 30,000 fatalities. Did you even read the information you posted?

A lifestyle perspective? Whose? Yours? Mine? Your average family with 2.1 children? This is an utter nonsense argument and you know it.

As the 'dangerous' (not) cars I want to buy get older, they'll get more rare and more expensive to obtain and own. This is definitely stopping me, slowly but inexorably, from buying such a car.

Further, I did read the info. 30,000 is 0.01% of the US population. That's almost two orders of magnitude less than the population growth rate (0.7%).

And driving A-B from 8-9AM and 5-6PM is not a lifestyle, it's just an appendix to what you do the rest of the day.

What's even more hilarious about N-Bomb's asinine argument is that cars have been losing weight over the last 5 or so years, but to him it will never be good enough.

2600lb curbweight or bust! Who needs four doors and rear seats? Better served to have a rollcage!

If they keep losing weight, great. They're still obese compared to the past. This is not muscle mass.

Yes, 2600-2800 lbs is a good goal. The Tata Nano is a piece of shit, but it's 1,400 lbs and is rumoured to carry 4 people. Another 1,000lbs can make up a lot of nice car.

I just bought this Alpine CDE-178BT to replace the stereo in my 2005 Mini. I can't find anywhere to tell me what cables or adapters I will need to install. Any help would be a great help, thanks.

Try looking up the model on Crutchfield, and in the recommended or included accessories, you might see what you need. Generally you will only need A) a wiring harness adapter to go between your car's wiring and the radio's, and B) possibly a mounting kit to integrate it into your dash.

MAXIMUM LIFESTYLE ENJOYMENT.

I know you also live your life a quarter mile at a time. Don't lie.

 

[reilo]

Tata Nano he said hahahahahaahahahahahaahhaha

 

[Seanbob11]

Try looking up the model on Crutchfield, and in the recommended or included accessories, you might see what you need. Generally you will only need A) a wiring harness adapter to go between your car's wiring and the radio's, and B) possibly a mounting kit to integrate it into your dash.

Yeah it's wiring adapter I'm stuck on. I've got a 2005 Mini Cooper and which I know would need this wiring harness. It's the other end of that that I don't think will fit into the end of my headunit. So I'm not sure if I need this.


Any ideas?

Edit: Found it! Thanks anyway.

 

[N-Bomb]

Tata Nano he said hahahahahaahahahahahaahhaha

Are you okay?

Yeah it's wiring adapter I'm stuck on. I've got a 2005 Mini Cooper and which I know would need this wiring harness. It's the other end of that that I don't think will fit into the end of my headunit. So I'm not sure if I need this.


Any ideas?

Edit: Found it! Thanks anyway.

Well the radio-end should come with the head unit. The only one you should need to buy is the car-end. Glad you found it, though.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

As the 'dangerous' (not) cars I want to buy get older, they'll get more rare and more expensive to obtain and own. This is definitely stopping me, slowly but inexorably, from buying such a car.

Further, I did read the info. 30,000 is 0.01% of the US population. That's almost two orders of magnitude less than the population growth rate (0.7%).

And driving A-B from 8-9AM and 5-6PM is not a lifestyle, it's just an appendix to what you do the rest of the day.

You can still buy plenty of crazy old sportscars for a lot less than a new sportscar, or even an economy car, and sure they'll cost more to maintain but when you've saved $10,000 over the purchase of a new car it takes a lot of maintenance cost to make up the difference.

It's a very small percentage of the population, but it's still 30,000 people. I don't see what your point is, that because we have a lot of people that those deaths are less significant? That the percentage, not the value, of deaths is low so it's not worth adding safety items to cars?

So what lifestyle are you talking about? For most people A-B stuff is all cars are good for, so really what you're complaining about is that there's more care put to saving lives than there is to catering to you.

Look dude, plenty of people lament the increased weight of modern cars, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone but you say that increased safety isn't worth it.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

Who are you to say they ARE worth the effort? 1ish fatality per 100 million miles travelled? Do you understand how infinitesimally small that is? These 'safety' improvements at this point are just something that sells to overfearful moms. Injuries are actually UP in 2010!
.

I didn't say we should make the effort. That's up to the manufacturer and legislation. There's a clear difference between that stance and outright stating it's a waste of money and effort.

Looking at absolute number is a stupid way to assess these stats, think of how much affordable people's incomes are now and how accessible vehicles are. There's a market for everything nowadays. Somebody's already mentioned population is also getting bigger.

 

[PseudoKirby]

I have been wondering, while american car companies have tried to enter the 4cyl FWD market, they really havnt touched the 4cyl RWD market (talking about sub3000lbs cars) really BALANCED cars.


I think the only example is the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice, which I think just had HORRIBLE timing for the companies.




and it only seemed to get 20mpg for some reason..

 

[ascii42]

I have been wondering, while american car companies have tried to enter the 4cyl FWD market, they really havnt touched the 4cyl RWD market (talking about sub3000lbs cars) really BALANCED cars.


I think the only example is the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice, which I think just had HORRIBLE timing for the companies.




and it only seemed to get 20mpg for some reason..

Yeah. Most people who want a sporty American car tend to want muscle.

Though who knows, maybe Chevy will actually release this thing:

 

[PseudoKirby]

Wow that looks rather interesting, 130R?

Wait, 1.4 litre? 150hp? 40MPG

sounds like it wont be much of a sportscar....

 

[TylerD]

A little disappointed, if I am being honest. Lost a lot that made the concept special looking. Really don't like the side vent. I actually prefer the 3 sedan in pictures.

From: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/06/14/2014-bmw-4-series-coupe-officially-debuts-priced-from-41-425/

BMW will offer the 4 Series in 428i and 435i models, both of which can be had with xDrive all-wheel drive. Just like in the 3 Series, the 428i is powered by a 2.0-liter turbocharged inline four-cylinder engine, good for 240 horsepower and 255 pound-feet of torque, and the 435i gets BMW's turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six making 300 hp and 300 lb-ft. In three of the four models, both a six-speed manual and eight-speed automatic transmission are available; the 428i xDrive can only be had with the auto 'box. The 428i (with rear-wheel drive, we assume) can hit 60 miles per hour in 5.7 seconds (though BMW doesn't specify with which transmission), and the 435i will do that same sprint in 5.3 seconds with the manual and five seconds flat with the eight-speed auto.

The 4 Coupe is one-tenth of an inch longer overall, while riding on the same 110.6-inch wheelbase, is 0.6 inches wider, and has a roofline that's a full 2.7 inches closer to the ground. It looks sleek, incorporating BMW's new design language from the 3 Series with an overall profile that's similar to the larger 6 Series coupe.

BMW will offer the 4 Series Coupe in three different trim lines – Luxury, Sport and M Sport. Much like the 3 Series range, the Luxury line focuses more on overall amenities and upscale appearance, while the Sport and M Sport models are meant to offer the most driver-focused set of equipment with slightly more aggression outside. 18- and 19-inch wheels are available on all models, and M Sport models get a whole raft of equipment including better suspension tuning and upgraded brakes to make the whole package more exciting on the road. The cabin doesn't look all that different from the 3 Series, incorporating the same suite of technological goodies and creature comforts, and is offered in a variety of hues.

The new 4 Series goes on sale later this summer, and BMW has already confirmed that pricing will start at $41,425 (*including destination) for the 428i Coupe – an increase of $1,650 versus a 328i sedan. From there, the 428i xDrive rolls in at $46,925, the 435i starts at $43,425, and the range-topping 435i xDrive will set you back $48,925.

Many more photos:

http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2014-bmw-4-series-coupe/#photo-5964804/

 

[coldfoot]

And you do? I would bet that you don't care about most of idiots on the road that you don't know. They probably even anger you sometimes. I'm sorry if I sound callous, but it's the truth.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL...getting angry in traffic != not caring if other people die. Besides, one of those idiots might just crash into you and I'm glad I'd be in a safe vehicle if that happens.

Also, 4 series is ugly, thankfully the 2 series looks promising.

 

[N-Bomb]

A little disappointed, if I am being honest. Lost a lot that made the concept special looking. Really don't like the side vent. I actually prefer the 3 sedan in pictures.

Man, that front splitter just looks like dogshit.

Here, have some Soul Red to make up for it:

 

[TylerD]

Here is a side comparison of the F30 sedan and F32 coupe.

And a couple of videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DAKPhj-N9rY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=T4TAn-Cj4BM

 

[AlphaSnake]

Yeah...that new 4-series is rather bland looking. I'm disappointed that they ended up using the elongated 3-series headlamps on the 4-series. I suppose a lot of the more aggressive design elements are being saved for the M3.

And btw, that wheel gap on the 435i M-Sport is fucking atrocious.

 

[Liquidus]

As much as I question Mexican made German cars I love the Polo. Drove it many times in Europe. Such a fun, little car.

I'm biased to any little cars though.

If this did come to North America I would lease it at least.

 

[Wubby]

I have been wondering, while american car companies have tried to enter the 4cyl FWD market, they really havnt touched the 4cyl RWD market (talking about sub3000lbs cars) really BALANCED cars.

I think the only example is the Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice, which I think just had HORRIBLE timing for the companies.

and it only seemed to get 20mpg for some reason..

Speaking of this anyone else here remember the 2002 Dodge Razor concept? Man I really wanted this car. Would have been a real screamer. $15k was the target price iirc. RWD and powered by the turbo SRT-4 engine.



Sadly this is the closest I ever got to it: